I was just wondering about the natural origin of C14, and if elctrical/magnetic fields might affect it and mess up calculations of age by C14 dating.

Nitrogen 14 is fed by pressure differentials in a continuous process in which atoms are held in fixed magnetic positions while electromagnetic energy converts protons into neutrons thus transmuting nitrogen 14 into carbon 14.

N14 is the most common form of natural nitrogen, so it seems to me that it would make sense that C14 could be the product of electrical activity, which would mess up dating? Seems to me the increase of available C14 would make things appear younger, but I am NOT a chemist. Lloyd, you out there?I learned something about C14 anyway...

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Carbon 14 (C14) in crystalline (diamond) form is a superconductor of great potential value to the electric utility industry because of the temperature range of C14 superconductivity from near absolute zero to the burning temperature of carbon. In addition, the great strength of C14 is of potential importance to the design of electric power lines, generators, motors, and transformers.

Very interesting, I thought, that the patent application is filed in part by a man I believe really knows his stuff.

It would be nice to have a method of absolute dating that was reasonably reliable and accurate but that is simply not the case. Radiocarbon dating and other radiometric dating techniques give an illusion of mathematical precision which is not justified. The assumption of constant rates of decay under any condition (for radiometric dating) and the assumption of reasonably constant carbon levels (for C 14 dating) in the past would not apply under dynamic and catastrophic conditions involving massive electrical discharges, floods, volanic eruptions, etc.The fact that C14 dating needs to be "calibrated" is a tip off that all is not well.Charles Ginenthal deals with this topic in The Extinction of the Mammoth(1997) in pages 153-202.

In dating of ancient Egyptian objects, C14 dates which do not conform with the accepted chronology are discarded as contaminated and not published, those that do, are published. This is hardly good science. Since there is no means of determining what is contaminated and what is not, other than its' support of the accepted chronological scheme, it amounts to nothing more than circular reasoning.Ginenthal (p163) quotes a Harvard professor:

If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in the footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it.

As an example of this, Ginenthal cites the results of a test performed by the British Museum on palm kernels and mat reed from the tomb of Tutankhamon, who supposedly lived in the 14th C BCE. The results were 899 BCE and 846 BCE, a discrepency of almost 500 years. Those dates were never published.

But as the method was refined, it started to show rather regular anomalies. First, it was noticed that, when radiocarbon dated, wood grown in the 20th century appears more ancient than wood grown in the 19th century. Suess explained the phenomenon by the fact that the increased industrial use of fossil carbon in coal and in oil changed the ratio between the dead carbon C12 and the C14 (radiocarbon) in the atmosphere and therefore also in the biosphere. In centuries to come a body of a man or animal who lived and died in the 20th century would appear paradoxically of greater age since death than the body of a man or animal of the 19th century, and if the process of industrial use of fossil, therefore dead, carbon continues to increase, as it is expected will be the case, the paradox will continue into the forthcoming centuries

Ginenthal cites several cases where the remains (hunted by humans) of extinct elephants such as mastodons and mammoths [who are thought to have become extinct, and supported by radiocarbon dating, a minimum of 12,000 years before the present] are found associated with pottery that cannot be dated beyond 3000 BCE and is probably much later. Also cited, are scenes painted in an Egyptian tomb, from the dynastic (historical) era, of a mammoth.see:Baruch Rosen, "Mammoths in ancient Egypt?" Nature, vol. 369, (June 2, 1994) p. 364

Britain's Science and Engineering Research Council conducted a test where objects of known age were sent to 38 labs for C14 dating. Only 7 labs gave reasonably accurate dates while the other 31 were way off, some by thousands of years.

Ginenthal wrote:...a tree growing next to an airport added so much additional old carbon to its wood tissues from airplane exhaust furmes which it had processed via photosynthesis, that when tested, its wood gave a radiocarbon date of 10,000 years. (footnote 71) Any animal that ate the foilage of that ree or the grasses growing in the vicinity, subject to the same conditions, would absorb that old carbon in far greater proportions...its radioactive age would appear much older than it actually was.

The fact of the matter is that C14 dating has failed too many tests to be considered reliable. Why should we accept a date that is derived solely from radiocarbon analysis when that method has been shown to be unreliable when put to the test?

Thanks for the links, guys. It looks to me that any form of Radiometric dating may be next to useless if we accept that there have been electrical, magnetic or radiation disruptions of unknown duration and magnitude in the Earths past, and I am pretty darned sure there have been!Even the stratigraphy mentioned in GCs link is suspect, as many of the events of the past seem to have deposited, or torn away, an unknown number of layers in perhaps a very short time. Fission track dating I'm not sure about, have to read up a little more on that, but I'm thinking figures for anything from before the last catastrophe (maybe 6500 years?) can not be considered accurate, and maybe totally useless.

In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

Hi Gary,I agree with what you have written but it doesn't need anything so dramatic to upset the stratigraphy. The Middle East and eastern Med are seismically very active areas and North America has been subject to several large post-ice age floods (by the mainstream's (no pun intended) own account). All things considered, I think it's safe to say that the further back they go the larger the margin for error. Or, put another way, the further back they go the more guess work is required.

If I have the least bit of knowledge I will follow the great Way alone and fear nothing but being sidetracked. The great Way is simple but people delight in complexity.Tao Te Ching, 53.

I am curious to know if carbon dating results would be in error due to the electric nature of the universe or are they still relatively accurate?

The reason for asking is that meteor impacts can apparently alter carbon results my hundreds or thousands of years so if you replace impacts with plasma discharge does it still cause disruptions in the carbon date? Lightning should skew results if this is true.

Anyway it would be nice to know for my presentation.

Thanks.

Nice Forum btw.

Secrets of Edward Leedskalnin“Like a flash of lightning and in an instant the truth was revealed.” - Nikola TeslaElectricity = Magnetism x Speed of Light Squared... Thats what he really meant.

Lightning emits EM rays in various frequences, thereby X-rays and gamma rays. A meteor impact will, according to EU theory, trigger enormous electrical discharges of the same kind. These rays will affect radioactive substances.

Cosmic rays or electrical discharges could increase the percentages of C-14 ("radiocarbon") in living organisms. If the remains of those organisms were dated using the standard radiocarbon ratios, they would appear to be much younger than they are, or much closer to the present era than they should be.

Doing a simple search on google for "problems with carbon dating" will provide a lot of information. Infact, I have a friend that was working to obtain his second PHD and when he was teaching a class he was told by the head of the department that if he teaches the problems with carbon date then they would fail him. Of course, that was an admission that there are problems.

Here are some quotes from another forum:

- Radioactive dating relies on a planet being essentially a closed system since shortly after its formation. However, powerful plasma discharges are a copious source of neutrons, which can introduce radioactive species to planetary surfaces. Matter is also irradiated and transferred between planets by cosmic discharges. Radioactive ‘clocks’ cannot be relied upon under such circumstances. "This also explains isotope anomalies in some meteorites, for example, in the Allende meteorite (and others of its type) where short-lived radioactive decay products like Mg26 are found to excess. It suggests conventionally that there was more than the expected amount of Al26 in the early nebula when the meteor was formed. This, in turn, has led to speculation that there was a nearby supernova at or near the same time. No such implausible explanation is required in an Electric Universe. The meteor is a remnant of debris removed from a planetary surface by a plasma arc, which has the power to generate radioactive species in situ in the meteorite.

Challenging absolute time http://www.plasmacosmology.net/spec.html- Russian scientists discover unexpected regularities in radioactive decay linked to astronomical cycles- From the link: "The implication is that many phenomena which until now have been regarded as purely statistical in character -- such as the distribution of fluctuations in the momentary rates of radioactivity measured in a sample -- are somehow controlled or at least strongly influenced by an astrophysical factor..."- If radioactive decay is linked to astronomical cycles, as these scientists argue, then this could challenge conventional chronologies. Additionally, if the solar system has suffered upheavals in recent millenia, especially of an intense electrical nature as many catastrophists contend, then traditional dating methods become almost obsolete.

* This TPOD http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... fossil.htm says:Ian Tresman's Catastrophism CD on-line (see link below) will generate 101 different references to radiometric dating in catastrophist literature. Most of these articles are about anomalies in radiometric dating

* This TPOD http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... ongago.htm says:- Is there evidence that the radiometric dating methods that scientists use with such confidence can change?- ... if an increase in radioactively neutral carbon isotope were to accumulate in our biosphere from burning forests, from cosmic dust, or from extensive volcanic eruptions, anything dated following whichever particular cause would appear much older. No definite timeline can be constructed using the dating methods traditionally thought to produce accurate results.- It seems possible that plasma interactions with Earth and other charged bodies in space, or the impact of ion beams from a vast cloud of plasma on our biosphere could disrupt all the elemental changes that are used to date rocks: uranium changing to lead; potassium changing to argon; or samarium changing to neodymium. Therefore, the Earth could be much younger than the billions of years commonly ascribed to it. It is equally possible that it is much older than is thought. Until some radical new discovery is made, no one can be sure.

As I understand it, the rate of decay of an isotope is dependant on the ambient electromagnetic background - if this Background changes, the rate of decay will also change - the longer the timeframe involved the less accurate the dating technique will be.

remelic wrote:Perfect, that helps a lot. I thought there were major problems with the process of carbon dating but there are a lot of people who would argue me to death that it is accurate.

There are also alot of people who argue that God will strike you down if you question his plan. Conviently both of these groups seem to be working with the same arguments and use the same tools of beratement and accusations of blasphemy.

Once you accept you are a Heretic, it hardly matters you are a questioning the foundations of a backwards system of coerced indoctrination. You will never be able to convince the believers until the people they admire and worship without question tell them to change their mind.

Hero worship shrouding over critical thinking is rampant in this world. Actual thinking is harder than just following someone whom everyone believes is right. Basically, faith trumps thinking for the majority of scientists of this world. It's a sad fact that no one really wants to admit about those whom we trust to be probing the secrets of the universe.

I was wondering about any possible effects on the Voyager probes as they pass through the heliosheath and out of the heliosphere. Both probes carry a trio of radioisotope thermoelectric generators to produce power. Could a change in the electromagnetic background cause issues with their power generation?

As a historical revisionist I am very interested in the possibility that "carbon dating" of artefacts can be wrong due to changes in Earth's experience over time.

My only letter from Velikovsky was about the error in carbon dating mats from Tutankhamen's tomb. He is in the 1300's yet the sample tested puts it in the 800's.

Thus I think that CD is a most important topic and that if EU can provide answers then such should be sought.

I tried sending the link to this thread to the David Rohl Forum called "The New Chronology" but my post was rejected as of no interest. If corrections to CD will remove the ever present 600-year Dark Ages that abound should we not open dialogue with any scientist who can show the pitfalls of CD?

Eric Aitchison wrote:As a historical revisionist I am very interested in the possibility that "carbon dating" of artefacts can be wrong due to changes in Earth's experience over time.

My only letter from Velikovsky was about the error in carbon dating mats from Tutankhamen's tomb. He is in the 1300's yet the sample tested puts it in the 800's.

Thus I think that CD is a most important topic and that if EU can provide answers then such should be sought.

I tried sending the link to this thread to the David Rohl Forum called "The New Chronology" but my post was rejected as of no interest. If corrections to CD will remove the ever present 600-year Dark Ages that abound should we not open dialogue with any scientist who can show the pitfalls of CD?

Eric Aitchison, Australia.

I agree that this is a VERY important problem that should be solved by EU. If it can show that the time-frame is actually a lot shorter for the Earth's creation then this changed the game completely. I really need to know if I can trust the dates of the ocean floor data? Is the oldest part of the ocean floor 180 million years old? I need to know if this is true or if the time-frame is shorter or longer then they say... I would have to say that the time-frame is distorted to show longer periods then they should be.

Peter

Secrets of Edward Leedskalnin“Like a flash of lightning and in an instant the truth was revealed.” - Nikola TeslaElectricity = Magnetism x Speed of Light Squared... Thats what he really meant.